Stress path and instability around mine openings Cheminement de contraintes et instabilité d’effort autour des ouvertures de mine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Stope design in Canadian hard rock mines is often carried out using the Stability Graph Method. However, this method does not account for the low confinement measured around stopes or quantify the amount of dilution associated with stope caving. A new approach to stope hangingwall stability is presented which consider the stress path the stope experiences and the effect of low confinement. A case study is used to illustrate the methodology. RÉSUMÉ: La création de chantier parmi les mines de roche dure au Canada est souvent effectuée en utilisant la méthode de graphique de stabilité. Cependant, cette méthode n’explique pas le bas quantité de confinement mesurée entre les chanters ou attribuer à la quantité de dilution associée avec l’abattement de chantier. Dans ce papier est présente une nouvelle façon d’évaluer la stabilité d’éponts supérieure qui prend en contexte le réseau de contraintes, l’expérience acquise et l’effet d’une base quantité de confinement. Une étude de cas réel est utilisée pour expliques la méthode. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Bemessung von grossen Erzabbaukavernen (stopes) in kanadischen Hartgesteinsgruben wird häufig mit der Stabilitätsdiagrammethode durchgefüht. Diese Methode erklärt jedoch nicht den wichtigen Einfluss niedriger radial Spannungen,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".